SENATE BILL: The It's Not Up To You Act (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:26:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The It's Not Up To You Act (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The It's Not Up To You Act (Law'd)  (Read 3254 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2013, 10:55:21 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2013, 11:58:10 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

Exactly
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2013, 11:58:19 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.


At this stage of the pregnancy, it isn't that presumptuous at all really.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2013, 12:00:48 PM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2013, 02:28:24 PM »

Wikipedia says:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to allow poorer mothers to not have a child then, by all means, provide free condoms and contraception, mandate proper sex education, increase access to abortion clinics in the first trimester. I would support all of those things.

I think, though, that an abortion not for life of the mother after 28 weeks (personally I'd actually prefer an earlier cut off) is tantamount to murder, and I won't support that.


Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2013, 02:50:59 PM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2013, 03:18:52 PM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person
This will be a never-ending argument. Personally, I find it very wrong to kill a fetus that could survive on it's own, and I would hope that at least a majority of Senators feel the same way.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2013, 03:30:33 PM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person
This will be a never-ending argument. Personally, I find it very wrong to kill a fetus that could survive on it's own, and I would hope that at least a majority of Senators feel the same way.

But you think it's okay to 'kill' a fetus that couldn't survive on its own, Tmth? What's the difference? Even if a woman carries a fetus to term and gives birth to a child it's not very likely that a fully developed child could 'survive on its own' without the attendant care of its mother or father, or a substitute parent of some sort.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2013, 03:57:34 PM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person
This will be a never-ending argument. Personally, I find it very wrong to kill a fetus that could survive on it's own, and I would hope that at least a majority of Senators feel the same way.

But you think it's okay to 'kill' a fetus that couldn't survive on its own, Tmth? What's the difference? Even if a woman carries a fetus to term and gives birth to a child it's not very likely that a fully developed child could 'survive on its own' without the attendant care of its mother or father, or a substitute parent of some sort.
Don't twist my words - neither is acceptable to me, which has been my position for years (with certain exceptions, of course). Personally, though, I don't believe in wasting the Senate's time on legislation that has zero chance of passing, otherwise I would be advocating for that as well.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2013, 02:39:48 AM »

I know this is a simple question - but I'd like to ask what is the intent of this Bill, what is the end result?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2013, 07:19:43 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.
I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person
This will be a never-ending argument. Personally, I find it very wrong to kill a fetus that could survive on it's own, and I would hope that at least a majority of Senators feel the same way.

But you think it's okay to 'kill' a fetus that couldn't survive on its own, Tmth? What's the difference? Even if a woman carries a fetus to term and gives birth to a child it's not very likely that a fully developed child could 'survive on its own' without the attendant care of its mother or father, or a substitute parent of some sort.

Of course not, but that doesn't give the parents the power of life or death over a child born fully developed, nor does society condone such at this present juncture. Humans need nuturing from a family setting early on, and if the biological parents cannot do it, we have ways to deal with that. Safe Surrender, Adoption, etc. None of them are perfect, but if the alternative is infanticide I will take the imperfect system.

I don't see why we make a distinction on the basis of birth when the evidence suggest that the mother can be "removed from the equation" earlier and the child still has a rather high rate of survival afterwards. Is it preferable? Of course not, but it is much more desirable then destroying life.

I also don't see why there is such a reluctance to side with the preservation of life, to take advantage of our advances in medicine and technology to save it where possible even in the most limited and restricted situations, from people who in every other case would seek to utilize every resource available to protect the weak and powerless or why such skepticism develops amongst such people about the same tools that they themselves would advocate in numerous other circumstances, namely the power of the gov't to enforce its own will and the benefits of regulation, when it comes to the issue of life.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2013, 07:20:39 AM »

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

Exactly

Doest that mean you would object to using the government to protect wildlife? To protect the environment? To reduce resource depletion, pollution, or destruction? Those aren't persons either, but that doesn't prevent the government from doing those things for the purpose of preserving life.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2013, 07:40:18 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Polnut's idea, minus the other changes for the sake of simplicity purposes.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2013, 07:45:54 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to come after minimum floor time expires.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2013, 12:58:14 AM »

I have a question. Do we have safe surrender in Atlasia?
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2013, 02:25:52 AM »

I have a question. Do we have safe surrender in Atlasia?

Yes. But I don't think that's an excuse to continue with these completely arbitrary trimester restrictions. Birth is the proper cut off, it makes sense legally.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2013, 08:30:02 AM »

I have a question. Do we have safe surrender in Atlasia?

Yes. But I don't think that's an excuse to continue with these completely arbitrary trimester restrictions. Birth is the proper cut off, it makes sense legally.

I just want to clarify... so you feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion, even if there's no medical need, and the foetus could survive outside of the womb, up until the point of birth?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2013, 09:58:23 AM »

I have a question. Do we have safe surrender in Atlasia?

Yes. But I don't think that's an excuse to continue with these completely arbitrary trimester restrictions. Birth is the proper cut off, it makes sense legally.

I just want to clarify... so you feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion, even if there's no medical need, and the foetus could survive outside of the womb, up until the point of birth?

Not to speak for Napoleon, but yes, I do believe that. Life begins at birth.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2013, 12:03:26 PM »
« Edited: August 11, 2013, 12:05:11 PM by Senator Napoleon »

I have a question. Do we have safe surrender in Atlasia?

Yes. But I don't think that's an excuse to continue with these completely arbitrary trimester restrictions. Birth is the proper cut off, it makes sense legally.

I just want to clarify... so you feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion, even if there's no medical need, and the foetus could survive outside of the womb, up until the point of birth?

Abortions for medical need are banned under the current law, Senator. And frankly there are "viable" nonperson fetuses that will he aborted because this is an arbitrary restriction not grounded in legal or medical reality. Its an emotional reaction and nothing more.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2013, 12:45:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


If you want to expand the exceptions for medical situations, then lets discuss that Senator.

I find it no more arbitrary then the point of birth considering how common it is that children are born within a week, two weeks, four weeks prior to nine months.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,601
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2013, 10:03:25 PM »

I could settle for that.

Add an exemption for the health of the mother in the third trimester. I'll not vote for any law allowing third-trimester abortions. Viable foetuses should be bringed to live. If mother doesn't want then, well, I'm sure than some infertile persons are interested.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2013, 11:30:42 PM »

I would enjoy knowing what "health of the mother" really means, though, beyond what is already current law. "This pregnancy is giving me back pain, can I have an abortion?"?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2013, 08:02:44 AM »

I believe Marokai's concern also came up last time around. There's no good answer. I ended up proposing wording that everyone seemed to support, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. I believe it's in the final text of the law though.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2013, 02:04:09 PM »

no amendments?

"Shocking, positively shocking" - because some times you need Sean Connery. Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.